“Our quality is a little bit different”: How family childcare providers who participate in a Quality Rating and Improvement System and receive childcare subsidy define quality

Abstract

This research uses focus group methodology to examine how a specific subset of family childcare providers—those participating in a voluntary quality rating and improvement system and serving a high percentage of children receiving childcare subsidy—define quality. The study builds on the limited existing research about family childcare quality, especially research focused on understanding quality from the perspective of the childcare provider. A total of 28 family childcare providers participated in three focus groups where they were asked to define quality and to describe high- and low-quality programs. Qualitative analysis revealed four themes: relationships, supporting children’s learning, the physical and temporal environment, and personal professionalism. These results can inform how quality improvement initiatives and professional development systems support and engage family childcare providers.

Family Child Care Program Closure in Alabama During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Thirty-one states offer tiered reimbursement for FCC, where providers receive a higher subsidy reimbursement rate based on their level in their state or local Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS; Dwyer et al, 2020). However, most QRIS are not designed to account for the unique context of FCC and maintain a center-based view of quality that can disincentive FCC participation (Hallam et al, 2019; Hooper et al, 2021). If the goal is protecting against closure, increasing reimbursement rates for all providers may be more effective than basing rates on a quality measure.…”

Prevalence and predictors of expulsion in home‐based child care settings

“…More providers who reported expelling said that their main reason for providing care was to earn money or have a convenient work arrangement, as opposed to helping children or families or as part of their career. This suggests that provider motivations may relate to expulsion decisions, and it highlights the important role that HBCC provider characteristics play in children's resulting experiences (Hooper et al., ).…”

“…However, experience was not significant in studies of center‐based settings (Gilliam & Shahar, ; Zinsser et al., ). Overall, this may be that because HBCC providers typically work alone, serve as the sole teacher and administrator, and have access to few outside supports, their personal characteristics are a more salient predictor of expulsion than in center‐based settings, where a teacher often shares responsibility and receives support from colleagues (Hooper et al., ).…”

“…Therefore, it may be important to examine the role that characteristics such as provider income, age, and motivation play in expulsion decisions in HBCC. For example, qualitative work about defining quality in FCC settings found that FCC providers view provider characteristics such as attitude and professionalism as more salient and proximal in HBCC compared to center‐based settings (Hooper, Hallam, & Skrobot, ). Given the previous research about the detrimental effects of expulsion in ECE, as well as the large number of children attending HBCC and lack of research about HBCC settings, it is important to study the prevalence of expulsion in HBCC, as well as the program and provider characteristics that relate to expulsion.…”